Lists uploaded Google Play graphics—icons, feature graphics, or screenshots—by language and image type so you can review available store listing assets.
Uploaded graphics of one type (icon, featureGraphic, phoneScreenshots, ...) for a language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edit_id | No | ||
| language | Yes | ||
| image_type | Yes | ||
| package_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of pagination, ordering, what happens when no images exist for a type, or how edit_id/package_name scope the query.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short, but short by omission rather than by economy: a single fragmentary sentence that is neither front-loaded with a verb nor complete enough to be actionable on its own.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A four-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and two undocumented nullable parameters needs the description to do real work. Instead it omits scoping semantics and return shape entirely, so an agent cannot call it correctly with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only gestures at two of four parameters ('one type' and 'for a language'). The nullable edit_id and package_name — arguably the most consequential, since they change which app/edit is read — are never mentioned anywhere.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase that identifies the resource (uploaded graphics) and the two key filters (image type, language), plus example enum values, so the agent can infer what the tool returns. But it never states the verb — nothing says 'list' or 'retrieve' — so the purpose is only implied by the tool name rather than stated outright.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no indication of when to call this versus the close siblings upload_images, delete_images, or list_listings. No prerequisites (e.g. whether an edit must be staged first, what edit_id does) and no exclusions are given, leaving the agent to guess from naming alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.